Micronations.wiki costs £160 per year to keep online.
Since we are unable to run advertisements, we ask that any users who are able to do so
make a contribution so that Microwiki may continue to survive and thrive. Thank you!

Contents

Criticisms

Anti-Grand Unified Micronational

The attempted disestablishment of the Grand Unified Micronational in September 2010 by the former Acting-Chairman, James von Puchow, followed a period of negotiation whereby some GUM members put forward proposals for some sort of merger with the OAM. This caused some controversy between those who supported the proposals and those who didn't,[2][3] with some alleging that the OAM, specifically Freeman, had "prejudice" against the GUM.[4] These discussions and accusations were the culmination of many months of accusations made against the OAM by various micronationalists.

Almost immediately upon the OAM's establishment, then GUM Chairman, Robert Lethler, accused the OAM on a number of occasions of having official anti-GUM policies after quickly discredited suggestions from OAM members that such was the case. The first such incidence occurred when the Danvanian President posted the following message on the GUM Wiki Talk Page:

“

The Organisation of Active Micronations will rise to be the greatest micronational organisation onMicroWiki. We do not compromise sovereignty. All dissatisfied with the lowly GUM should join us.[5]

We [Barrington] have joined the OAM and are quite happy there in an organisation free from dictatorship...[6]

”

Although then Secretary-General Freeman was quick to respond to and denounce the statements, Robert Lethler continued to criticise the OAM itself.[6]

Gordon Freeman stated on numerous occasions that the statements made were in no way indicative of any official anti-GUM policy ever adopted by the Organisation. Joe Foxon and Pierre d'Égtavie were also vocal in conveying this message:

“

As Joe Foxon, Egtavia and myself [Gordon Freeman] have repeatedly pointed out, the comments that Mr. Foxon made on the OAM talk page, and, for that matter, those of Danvania, do not reflect any sort of policy ever enacted, adopted or otherwise endorsed by the OAM.[7]

”

Despite this, when the proposals for the GUM's proposed merger with the OAM were introduced by leading GUM members James von Puchow, then Acting Chairman, and Jonathan Caesar, then Supreme Judge of the GUM, some delegates accused the OAM of having dogged anti-GUM views and beliefs.[4]

Particular attention was recently given to Gordon Freeman's many terms in the leadership of the OAM following a Motion of No Confidence proposed against him by Jonathan Caesar of Austenasia on behalf of and in collaboration with a group of other micronationalists[10][1], after having announced that A1 had left the community in the previous year. In the known as the Micropolitan Lounge Skype chatroom , Freeman's many terms as leader of the OAM is known to have been talked about when a member referred to him as "Lethler's Aussie evil twin",[11] (referring to Robert Lethler, notorious for holding almost dictatorial control over the MicroWiki Sector during his similar tenure in the GUM). Duke Bradley of Dullahan of Wyvern referred to Freeman as "power hungry" and using the OAM as his "power tool" , ruling it with an "iron conservative hand"[9]. Ciprian of Juclandia expressed concerns that "If he [Freeman] get [sic] pissed off he would delete all [sic]"[12] and that the OAM was being used as "...a personal object of mr. Gordon Freeman [sic], its SG, to keep his influence in the community".[13] 'CommiCzar' of DeWaCo Estates remarked that the "power" of holding an office in the Organisation "goes to some ( not all ) of these individual's heads" and that they are "power-hungry with a degree of "internal" power".[14]

Freeman had previously responded to these criticisms, calling them "unbelievable"[15] and "...ridiculous to the point of amusing".[16] Also, the fact that the OAM's elections never experienced any irregularities, and all candidates elected using this system were elected fairly, helps to discredit any suggestion that the leadership of the OAM may have gained power unfairly. Neither are the accusations of dictatorial power supported by the fact that the Council of the OAM, made up of every OAM member nation, was responsible for taking almost all decisions in the Organisation by a simple majority (50%+1) vote, and could override any decision made in the Organisation.[17]

Anti-secessionist

Some OAM members' prominent association with and promotion of the Micras Sector has led some to allege that the OAM is anti-secessionist. Such criticism came especially from the user 'CommiCzar' of DeWaCo Estates[14]. Duke Bradley of Wyvern, has also accused the OAM of holding a pro-Micras, pro-simulationist and anti-secessionist bias.[18], as well as Ciprian of Juclandia[19].

Anti-simulationist

Some Micras micronations have accused the OAM of being anti-Micras and anti-simulationist [20]. This has been fed by the many times that resolutions have been proposed in the Council of the OAM taking a negative view towards Micras and geofictional micronations [21][22].

Inactivity

One of the more recent criticisms directed at the OAM are allegations of inactivity and attempting to 'cover up' these occurrences [23]. Bradley of Dullahan has been particularly vocal in this area of criticism, claiming that "Only 15 nations are realy [sic] active of the 82" [23]. Other micronationalists, principally of the MicroWiki Sector, have also expressed similar concerns, including King Quentin I[24], Sebastian von Linden[25] and Counsellor Cunningham going on to accuse the OAM of "corruption"[26]. King Quentin went on to accuse the OAM of his "...recent 'attempts' to remove inactive member nations" of "...being held back for no apparent reason". Bradley, Quentin and others in the 'MicroPolitan' Skype Chatroom and OAM Forum also accused Gordon Freeman of faking the activity of some member nations on the forum[27][28], an accusation that was later retracted.

Others defended the organisation, such as Joe Bloggs, arguing that "...its not a lost ship yet and if people such as yourself stopped bombarding it with criticism I am sure a lot more work could be done to bring it the necessary reforms to develop itself within some form of new capacity within the community"[29]. Gordon Freeman responded specifically to Bradley's accusations on the OAM Forum regarding inactive member nations, listing every "inactive" member nation and/or former member nation with proof of their expulsion[30]. Bradley later said that he was "pleased" with this.